I read Lisa's book last year. It was quite instructive on branes and possible mediators or communications between branes. I use bits here and there in That's In The Bible?, especially in the section I did on Daniel chapter five, the handwriting on the wall scene.

642
posted on 06/13/2007 10:58:49 PM PDT
by MHGinTN
(You've had life support. Promote life support for those in the womb.)

I swear you make my head hurt. He was not talking about the Bible, your stating so, or thinking he might have said so of it in other circumstances, or thinking it would be so nice if he would have said it, or supposing in some mystical fashion he was talking about both at the same time without knowing it does not change the fact that he was talking about the human genome.

For Collins, unravelling the human genome did not create a conflict in his mind. Instead, it allowed him to glimpse at the workings of God.

When you make a breakthrough it is a moment of scientific exhilaration because you have been on this search and seem to have found it, he said. But it is also a moment where I at least feel closeness to the creator in the sense of having now perceived something that no human knew before but God knew all along.

When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you cant survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I cant help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of Gods mind.

You said he was speaking about the Bible. We pointed out he was speaking about the genome. It’s a trivial mistake (you trusted the wrong source), yet instead of saying, “Oops, I had the context wrong on that,” you continued to say that he was talking about the Bible, then said that he was talking about both simultaneously, and now say that he was talking about God. Duh! Of course he was talking about God, but he was definitely not talking about the Bible!

My question is why you have such a hard time backing down when we point out something you’ve quoted was actually never said or was said in a different context than you gave? We agree truth and what actually happened is important, right, so why is it you have to be dragged kicking and screaming into admitting the facts?

I gather you two would rather discuss me and my shortcomings than the topic at hand. :^) If you can't "win" on points, then disqualify your opponent.

Making mistakes is not a shortcoming. Refusing to acknowledge or correct them is.

Quoting out of context (and thus misquoting) is among the most common errors made on these threads. If we cannot agree that accurate attribution and correct interpretation of quotations is important, we cannot have a dialog.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.